point out that the same is pertaining to the entire extent of the suit property as described in the plaint and when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their long possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint for several years and when the house tax receipts and E.B bill receipts produced by the plaintiffs marked as Exs.A2 to A13 would not be sufficient and germane to establish that the suit property as described in the plaint had been in their possession and enjoyment for several years, in such view of the matter, it is seen that by way of Ex.A1 “B” memo receipt, we cannot safely conclude that, as determined by the Courts below, the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs as claimed by them for several years. Furthermore Ex.A1 is found to be pertaining to the fasli 1407. The defendants have produced the adangal extract Ex.B7 for the faslis 1406 and 1407 with respect to the survey No.93/3 and from the same, it is found the third plaintiff is only in the possession and enjoyment of an extent of 0.01.0 ares out of 0.03.0 ares by constructing a house and accordingly when it is found from Ex.B7, that the plaintiffs are in the possession and enjoyment of an extent only about 2 ½ cents of land by putting up a construction therein and when Ex.A1 “B” memo receipt do not show the extent of the property in respect of which the said “B” memo had been issued, accordingly, it is seen that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that the suit property measuring an extent about 7 ½ cents of land are in their possession and enjoyment for several years as projected by them. Therefore, as rightly determined by the Courts below, there is no material placed on the part of the plaintiffs to evidence that the suit property has been in their possession and enjoyment by placing acceptable and reliable evidence and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the plaintiffs cannot be granted the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.
